Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 July, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2826 of 2010
Date of Decision : July 09, 2010.
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board .....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner-Board seeks quashing of the order dated 23.1.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereby the petitioner-Board and the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (for short `the HSMITC') have been jointly directed to pay the arrears of gratuity to respondent No.4 w.e.f. 4.8.1981 to 31.5.1998 (for the period of 17 years) when respondent No.4 was in the service of the HSMITC before his absorption in the petitioner-Board. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-7) whereby its appeal against the afore- mentioned order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. C.W.P.No.2826 of 2010 2
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the orders.
There is indeed no dispute that respondent No.4 is entitled to be paid gratuity for the subject period as it has been so found by the Authorities under the Act also. The contention that the gratuity is to be paid by the HSMITC is an issue inter-se between the petitioner-Board and the HSMITC. The fact that the cheque for the amount falling to its share deposited by the HSMITC with the Controlling Authority has been issued in an incorrect name, is not a valid ground to assail the orders as such a clerical mistake can always be got corrected. The petitioner-Board may move an application before the Controlling Authority for correction of the mistake, if any, and to direct the HSMITC to issue a fresh cheque in the name of the petitioner-Board. Similarly, the apprehension that respondent No.4 would now start claiming some other benefits also, is nothing but a figment of imagination. As and when such a benefit is claimed by respondent No.4, the Board shall have the right to oppose/defend itself in accordance with law.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti.
July 09, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE